On Wednesday, February 23, 2011, the organization Voice of the Retarded (VOR) which advocates for choice among care options by individuals with intellectual disabilities and their guardians, sent out an Urgent Call for Action urging all supporters of choice of care to respond to the federal Administration on Developmental Disabilities’ (ADD) recommendation that all congregate care facilities in the United States be eliminated. Families of SHPC residents have responded to this call by writing and posting their views on the ADD’s web site. Here is one example.
February 24, 2011
To Whom It May Concern:
I am disturbed that ADD would even consider the recommendation to eliminate congregate care programs. Families need a range of care options. My daughter, now 35, has been competently and compassionately cared for in an award-winning congregate care facility, Seven Hills of Groton in Groton, Massachusetts, since she was 13. She is profoundly brain-injured due to an airborne virus she contracted within weeks of her birth, and has many potentially life-threatening health needs which require 24-hour nursing supervision. I object to the recommendation that this and similar facilities be eliminated. These licensed facilities save taxpayer money and provide the excellent care which adult children like mine require and deserve. Group homes are not for everyone. They are not the best facility or even an adequate facility for all those with mental retardation or other developmental disabilities, especially those with complex health care needs. ADD should not use taxpayers’ money to sponsor programs and promote policies which undermine or eliminate congregate care options, especially in regards to facilities for individuals with complex medical care needs. These facilities are life-sustaining to those who live in them. Elimination of these facilities will cause loss of life, and families will suffer the worry and indignity of moving their loved ones to less favorable environments. The agenda of those who support elimination of these programs must be carefully scrutinized. Who benefits? Those who will gain financially from alternate facilities? Certainly not the residents whose lives depend on these facilities.
Sincerely,
Janie Simmons
Rockaway Beach, New York